Replies

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Government tinkering with marriage will only make matters worse. Government tinkering with just about anything only makes matters worse.

It is time for social conservatives to realize that government involvement of marriage will inevitably lead to the destruction of the institution, and that it is time to get government out of the marriage business.

The natural tendency is to try to use government to fight a tendency in society that we oppose. But every time we grant government power, that power will eventually be used against us. The only way to save marriage is to eliminate the ability of the government to define it. Once the government is able to define marriage, the destruction of marriage is inevitable.

Heterosexual marriage will always predominate in society because it makes sense. The benefits for the purposes of raising a family will always make heterosexual marraige an attractive life-style. Marriage of people in non-family situations will always be an echo of that predominant social institution. But the echo cannot be stomped out without destroying what makes the echo in the first place.

Social conservatives must resist the temptation to use the power of the state to stomp out what they do not like. Remember that the state likes us a lot less than anybody else. Better to let marriage be an arrangement between individuals, and heterosexual marriage will inevitably win in the marketplace of ideas.

When did social conservatives become so timid that they feel the need to have Big Brother Government fight their battles for them?

Your well-intentioned missive is off the mark. Way off.

Most of what you are saying is abject nonsense when you study what is really at stake in the law and the courts. Go to a family court and *then* tell us how to get the Govt out of an institution they have been involved with for centuries, since Blackstone's law. The difference lately is that Government has spent the last 40 years undermining marriage as a strong institution between a man and wife in one way or another: Making men pay heavily for divorces yet get short shrift in custody (100 years ago, men typically got custody if they were better able to support the kids), no fault divorces, making it easier to break a marriage contract than a car lease. And putting greater burdens on the married than the single (marriage penalty, rules in welfare that encourage single parenthood over healthier relationships). ... will you get the Govt out of *that*??? And if now, how *will* you determine the proper custody for children in such cases?

This oxymoronic 'gay marriage' just sticks the knife in deeper. It is the exclamation point that makes marriage from a sacred covenent to merely and arrangement of cohabitating sex partners that can be started or ended at will - the real victims of this are the children in our society. Marriage is the crucial institution of our civilization, it transmits our culture to the next generation. Undermining it is a way to degrade and ultimately destroy our civilization. Surely you've read the studies that indicate how much worse children are statistically as a result of divorce and broken homes.

To say our $2 trillion a year Government should get out of marriage is like saying fish should avoid getting wet.The suggestion that govt has nothing to do with marriage is without any foundation in law or history. EVERYTHING the Govt does affects marriage - and vice versa.
Laws define how Govt treats the relations of children, parents, spouses, etc. Taxes relate to it; inheritance relates to it; property laws (community property) relate to it.

"Social conservatives must resist the temptation to use the power of the state to stomp out what they do not like. "

Same could be said for gay activists, libertarians, liberals, soccer moms, gun-grabbers, socialists, and those who dislike traditional values. ... but you tellingly dont put it that way. The burden is only on the conservatives. Gay activists didnt like the inconvenience of having to define their sex partner relationships differently from married people. Here is a clue - if the gay activists wanted govt 'out of the way' they *wouldnt* be taking these things to court and demanding NEW LAWS and NEW COURT RULINGS! So the simpler answer is this - get them out of the court.

The ability to be married without Govt recognition exists - today! When two lesbians go around and have a 'ceremony' and call themselves 'married' nobody is stopping them! Nobody! They can call whatever they do whatever name they please. So your 'proposal' is a Red Herring, as 'common law' marriages can and do exist all over.

"Remember that the state likes us a lot less than anybody else."

Well that was proven today. But destroying the concept of traditional marriage in law totally after a ruling like this is like getting mugged and then after the mugger walks away yelling "hey, you forgot my other pocket!"

"Better to let marriage be an arrangement between individuals, and heterosexual marriage will inevitably win in the marketplace of ideas."

(sigh) we pay for the stupidity of others when they do these things - who pays for the family law courts when these 'non-traditional' families have trouble??? Who will pay for the Judges that arbitrate the first lesbian 'divorces' or the custody battles when two lesbians get a gay friend to donate semen, get an artificial insemination baby then decide it's no fun anymore when the kid is 3. Who takes over? How will taxes work? In britian the Govt acknowledged that it cost them almost $1 billion to implement civil unions for gays in that country. You can easily expect billions in the added healthcare benefit costs for govt workers with "domestic partner" benefits, etc. This ruling will cost us and interfere with our own lives.

As for the claim that Govt cant help preserve traditional values through law, I suggest you read 'Statecraft as Soulcraft' from George Will. Profound.